Deputy Speaker, the DA originally welcomed the tabling of the Lotteries Amendment Bill, which the department introduced following years of sustained criticism by civil society, the DA and the general public of the way in which the Lotto was being managed. The criticism focussed around the fundamental lack of transparency throughout the entire Lotto operation, a complicated and unresponsive grant applications process, alleged corruption, conflicts of interest and political bias.
It was in 2010 when the DA, in fact, introduced a Private Member's Bill to fix many of these problems. It was introduced by the hon Small. This Bill was summarily rejected on the basis that similar legislation would soon be introduced by the executive. Well, nearly three years later, the Minister of Trade and Industry finally tabled the Lotteries Amendment Bill. For the most part, this Bill is a good one.
We support the following aspects of the Bill: the introduction of the much stricter rules for who can be appointed to the board and the commission, as well as the all-important distributing agencies; the introduction of much stricter rules around conflict of interests, who can adjudicate applications, who can apply for grants, who may and may not receive grants and a mandatory 24-month cooling-off period; the inclusion of an appeal mechanism to allow applicants who have been declined or who have the information that grants are being made or are being used corruptly to appeal these decisions, which will make blowing the whistle on suspected corruption in the Lotto easier and more effective; and, lastly, the creation of full-time distributing agencies that will enable people to deal with agencies much more speedily, greatly reducing the three to six months waiting time that applicants currently have to wait for an answer.
If the Bill had ended there, we would have been supporting it wholeheartedly today, as I think would most of organised civil society. However, in our view, the Bill is entirely ruined by the inclusion of the controversial clause 13(a) - which the Minister made reference to - which allows the Minister to license any organ of state to run the Lottery for a period of eight years with an option of renewal of two years - effectively ten years altogether.
It's helpful for this House to recap briefly the arguments made in Committee on this issue. The department began very specifically by arguing that they needed to allow a state organ to run the Lotto for a brief period as a stopgap, only in the event that a suitably qualified private sector licensee could not be found and so that the continued operation of the Lotto could be guaranteed. That is why the Bill as originally tabled contained an allowance for the period of 24 months for the stopgap, in which time the department would need to issue a new request for proposals, receive and evaluate bids and appoint a new licensee. This argument, hon members, was completely reasonable and the DA had no objection.
The second scenario outlined was when the appointed licensee at some point in their licence period is unable to honour their contract, as happened in 2007, when the Lottery was shut down for six months. Again, the original Bill asked for a period of 24 months to fix this by allowing the state organ to run the Lotto temporarily while a new private licensee was sought and appointed. Again, we had no objection. But what was clear was that at no stage was the argument made that what the government wanted was a straight state-run Lotto for a full period of ten years.
If hon members refer to the Bill, as ATCed, the argument is not made in the explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill. If the hon members refer to the policy document that was released accompanying the Bill, the argument is not made in that policy document. In fact, the only mention made of the state running the Lotto is in one bullet point on page 29 of the document, under the heading "Technical Amendments". What we have before us today is not a technical amendment, it's a major policy shift, and it's a very bad idea.
The Bill before us does not offer any details on what the state organ will look like. Will it be the relatively efficient South African Revenue Service, or will it be Public Works or will it be South African Airways? Who will head it? How will that person or team be appointed? Who will they account to? And how will the revenue be split? These are all things we know nothing about. But despite these missing details, the committee decided to agree to the change and changed 24 months to 8 years.
However, this was not the only controversy. Far more important is the question of whether the department intends crowding out the private sector altogether, that is whether the Minister must first go through a competitive bidding process and prove that no suitable bidder could be found before he licenses an organ of state, or, conversely, can he proactively license an organ of state without first seeking a suitable private sector bidder?
It was very clear to me, and I have confirmed this with the Deputy Director General, that the Minister wanted the power to license an organ of state without any need to first follow a competitive bidding process. In fact, I think the Minister may still be under this impression. However, let me tell Minister Davies now that the committee was of a very different opinion. On the last day of deliberations at which the department was, unbelievably, not present, all the members of the committee made it very clear that the Minister must first follow a competitive bidding process and then show good reason why no suitable licensee could be found.
The DA argued in committee that the 24-month period be retained and not increased to eight years. We then argued that the clause should be deleted in its entirety. And lastly, we argued that the Minister should show good grounds for the decision to license a state entity. The last of these was successful, and we are pleased that requirement is now contained in the Bill.
Our final point of objection concerns conduit funding - and this is important for hon members. This Bill now prohibits any NGO in South Africa from applying for funding from the Lotto on behalf of other NGOs. We know that there are many excellent organisations in South Africa, like the Community Chest, for example, which specialises in sourcing funding and managing those funds on behalf of other NGOs in the community.
There was evidence presented of some abuse, sure, but what this Bill does is like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. It was completely unnecessary to prohibit conduit funding altogether. The DA and civil society eagerly awaited this Bill and looked forward to a Bill that we could all support. It is sad that we now have a Bill before us that we cannot support. We believe that what started out as a great Bill was ruined entirely by the department that is obsessed with the state capture of every aspect of our economy.
Do you know, hon members, that at one point in the committee process the department actually made the argument that political office bearers should be allowed to have a financial interest in the Lotto? [Interjections.] They actually made that argument. It is in the record. If South Africans had concerns about political bias, corruption, conflict of interest and lack of transparency in the Lotto before, they will now be even more concerned for the future of the national lottery. Clause 13(a) ruins this Bill entirely and it makes it impossible for the DA to support this Bill. Thank you very much. [Applause.]